Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Tom Harris, the fossil fuel industry paid shill, has another letter where he tries to portray science as nothing more than an opinion. If that wasn't bad enough, he quoted Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry as an authority. You can imagine that it didn't go very well - and it didn't. Read it here. I collaborated with commenter Terry on a response, which was published in the Duluth News Tribune here. A more direct response is shown below.

*****

Regarding the June 26, 2017 “Scientific theories aren't
truth, but educated opinions,” this article is designed to deceive the reader. This isn’t a surprise
considering the author, Tom Harris, is paid to place articles for the purpose
of undermining climate science.

It is deceitful for Harris to claim science is an opinion. Gravity
isn’t an opinion. It isn’t an opinion that humans must breathe air. The
greenhouse effect isn’t an opinion. All of these are conclusions, supported
with scientific evidence and reached via the scientific method.

As for his “experts” questioning climate science, the truth
is that in excess of 97% of all climate scientists agree that manmade climate
change is real. If 97% of engineers said a bridge was unsafe, would you drive
over it because someone who isn’t even an expert in the field insists that science
and engineering are opinions?

Concerning ‘skeptics,’ Harris isn’t one. A skeptic examines
the facts with an open and questioning mind. Harris doesn’t fit that
description. He has rejected science and has a long resume of advocating for
the fossil fuel and tobacco industries. See more at http://tomharrisicsc.blogspot.com/2016/12/tom-harris-paid-shill.html

We also note how Harris quoted DoE Secretary Rick Perry
concerning having an ‘open discussion.’ So, let’s have an open discussion concerning
Secretary Perry.

Perry has received considerable funding from oil and gas interests, was a board member
of Energy Transfer Partners — owner of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), is a former
chairman of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), and received
funding for his presidential campaign from the CEO of Energy Transfer Partners.
Perry even advocated eliminating the DoE during his presidential run.

Once the facts are presented, the
picture is not as painted by the highly deceptive Harris. And, that is not an
opinion.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

There are few things that will get anti-science climate
change deniers in a froth more quickly than bringing up the hockey stick. Maybe it’s because the hockey stick shows, without
question, that global warming is real. The graph even leads to the conclusion,
with no other data necessary, that it’s caused by humans.

The nickname is a result of the shape of the graph showing
average global temperatures for the last several centuries. There was a gradual
downward trend following the end of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the 14th
century until a very large upturn in the late-19th century. Here is
the original graph:

As you can see, there is no comparable uptick in temperature
anywhere else in the graph and this change occurred as our industrial complexes
were expanding, strongly indicating this uptick was caused by us. Of course,
further research was needed to confirm this result. That research has been done
and the hockey stick has been confirmed by multiple studies.

[UPDATE: For an excellent review of how completely false the Notrickzone article is go here. I particularly like the summary:

We rank the claims made by both Breitbart and No Tricks Zone as false,
because they dramatically misrepresent the findings of the scientists
who conducted the research and utilize poorly-articulated straw man
arguments to further misrepresent the significance of the work of
those scientists. These studies were local in nature, narrowin
scope, meant to address how the climate system functioned in the past,
and pose no threat to the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.

Thanks to jmac for providing the link.]

It doesn’t take long to see what the problem is with this
article, namely cherry picking. Cherry picking is selecting data to support
your predetermined conclusion and ignoring data that doesn’t. Take a quick
look at the article and you’ll see graphs for the western Mediterranean, the
Spanish Pyrenees, northern Spain,
Arctic summer temperatures, South
China Sea, Alberta, Scotland, and more. In other words,
the author of this piece went and found scientific papers that discussed some
aspect of temperature for some given region and he then expanded it to mean
global warming.

There’s two huge problems with this. The first is that we
are discussing ‘global’ warming, not ‘Alberta’
warming. There’s the cherry picking. Given global warming, it is a fact of the
laws of thermodynamics that some areas will actually see a cooling trend. As
more heat is stored in the atmosphere, more work will be done. Weather can only
occur when there is a temperature difference between regions. So, as more work
is done in the form of weather, it is required that some areas be warmer than
others. That is why we focus on global averages. We want to know what is
happening to the entire planet. What is happening in the Spanish Pyrenees is
important and is a worthwhile thing to study, but it doesn’t fall under the
definition of ‘global’ warming.

The other problem is that some of these graphs, showing
temperature trends for limited regions instead of global averages, still show
the hockey stick is present, even for the isolated region in question. The author
of this article is trying to prove the hockey stick isn’t real by showing
examples of it actually existing. And, I’m sure he has no problem with that
logic.

I’m not the only one to find this article doesn’t pass any
kind of scientific muster. You can read a much better review, conducted by five
scientists, here.

This is just another giant cherry pick by
"nottickszone" of the earths average annual air temperature. These
cherry picks are typical of "notrickszone" and other denier blogs.
Nobody has said that every region of the earth will warm at the same rate.

“Global warming” means Earth's average annual air
temperature is rising, but not necessarily in every single location during all
seasons across the globe.

"Temperature trends across the entire globe aren’t uniform because of the
diverse geography on our planet—oceans versus continents, lowlands versus
mountains, forests versus deserts versus ice sheets—as well as natural climate
variability. When you’re zoomed in on a particular place, you may not be able
to see the overall trend.

It is only when scientists calculate the average of temperature changes from
every place on Earth over the course of a year to produce a single number, and
then look at how that number has changed over time that a very clear, global
warming trend emerges. In other words, it’s only when we “zoom out” to the
planet-wide scale that the trend is obvious: despite a few, rare areas
experiencing an overall cooling trend, the vast majority of places across the
globe are warming.https://www.climate.gov/sit...
Observed trend in temperature from 1900 to 2012; yellow to red indicates
warming, while shades of blue indicate cooling. Gray indicates areas for which
there are no data. There are substantial regional variations in trends across
the planet, though the overall trend is warming. Map from FAQ appendix of the
2014 National Climate Assessment. Originally provided by NOAA NCDC.

The reason a “zoomed out” view makes the long-term trend so clear is that
Earth's annual average temperatures from year to year are found to be very stable
when nothing is forcing it to change. Today, though, every decade since 1960
has been warmer than the last, and the last three decades each have been the
warmest on record. Relative to geologic time, the warming that has
occurred—1.5°F (0.85°C) over a span of 100 years—is an unusually large
temperature change in a relati vely short span of time.

However, not all land masses and oceans have experienced or will experience a
constant, identical rate of warming. Natural variations in our climate system
cause temperatures to vary from region to region and from time to time, leaving
sporadic fingerprints in the long-term temperature record. When you consider
the global map above, you can see that in a few parts of the world temperature
trends were basically ”flat” over the last century."

In conclusion, I have to wonder why this guy would write an
article that is so easily debunked. I guess there are people who will believe
anything that affirms their hatred of science, but why would you be willing to make
such a fool of yourself in the process? But, then again, I guess that's what they specialize in at Breitbart.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

The following was submitted to illustrate how the anti-science people censor anything they don't like. This, of course, is completely counter to having a debate. If they really wanted to debate the science, they would welcome pro-science people who cite the facts and the evidence. Draw your own conclusions.

The
following comments include several of mine which seem not to have been posted
on the PJ Media website, although for the life of me, I don't know why? The
site seems to favor the comments of deniers, so I thought showing those that
weren't shown or were delayed for some mysterious reason might make a good
guest post for DOGW. At present, I am not sure that I will ever find them back
where they vanished, after previously seeming to have been successfully posted
there, in part, because the site possibly has a biased moderator, and because
they may have been deleted due to some technicality. But over and over again
the ones that I consider the best, are being held back or deleted entirely. Go
figure?

MekhlisPeter Johnson * a day ago

I
guess that a street sweeper can have an opinion on AGW, and it might be every
bit as correct (or false) as Mr. Nye's. But a street sweeper would not
advertise as the "Science Guy." My point was, and still is, that
there is no more reason to listen to Nye than there is to anyone picked at
random from the phone book. He is no scientist--certainly not a climate
scientist. He is a first-rate fraud, though."

Peter
JohnsonMekhlis * a day ago

Nye
can advertise himself as "the science guy," because he IS a
"science guy." He may not have the same education or be the best
qualified to explain climate science to others, but he has had a TV show on
which he taught and demonstrated scientific facts. And, as far as I know,
neither has he advertised himself as (Bill Nye the AGW expert guy).

Although
a mechanical engineer does not learn all that a scientist learns in his
education, he is none the less a scientist, and one that does understand many
of the principles underlying our present global warming. I can understand why
you may not give him much credit for being an exceptionally learned expert, but
I have no idea why you think he should be called a fraud? ---has he ever
claimed to know as much as climate scientists do? ---if not, how is he
committing fraud?

MekhlisPeter Johnson * a day ago

An
engineer is no "scientist." He is an engineer. Since that distinction
should be apparent, I have no more to say on this subject. Goodbye.

"Mechanical
engineering emerged as a field during the Industrial Revolution in Europe in the 18th century; however, its development can
be traced back several thousand years around the world. In the 19th century,
developments in physics led to the development of mechanical engineering
science. The field has continually evolved to incorporate advancements; today
mechanical engineers are pursuing developments in such areas as composites,
mechanics, and nanotechnology. It also overlaps with aerospace engineering,
metallurgical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering,
manufacturing engineering, chemical engineering, industrial engineering, and
other engineering disciplines to varying amounts. Mechanical engineers may also
work in the field of biomedical engineering, specifically with biomechanics,
transport phenomena, biomechatronic, bionanotechnology, and modeling of
biological systems."

OOPS!
I'm technically wrong--a mechanical engineer just needs to know many different
things from many different branches of science---silly me!

You
really do have nothing more to say about it, because you deny the broader role
of science that permeates and incorporates knowledge taken from many different
scientific fields. Do you allow deniers to borrow your hair splitter too?

In
this next comment, Mekhlis resorts to the obnoxious tactic of insulting me and
demeaning my use of Wikipedia, apparently just because he believes it is
worthless. It is so ironic that many deniers think this kind of vitriolic and
pugnacious attitude, just reeking with condescension, is theirs to use
righteously and at will, while thinking it is they who are being insulted for
simply having their beliefs challenged?

MekhlisPeter Johnson * a day ago

Congratulations.
So, you have learned to cut and paste, and from Wikipedia at that, the dunces'
go-to "source" that would earn an undergraduate an 'F' in any class.
At least copying improves your otherwise shockingly poor grammar. Of course, advanced
engineers master all sorts of fields; but Nye never earned an advanced degree,
even in engineering. He has merely a Bachelor's degree, and you have no
evidence at all that he has any expertise in any of the fields that you copied
above. More to the point, read the segment that you copied, if you can: it says
nothing whatsoever about climatology; he is certainly no environmental
scientist. Nye also has lately taken to pontificating about gender, although he
has no training in genetics, biology, biomedicine [not biotechnology], or even
psychology. I do not see any reference above to any of these disciplines. With
his bow-tie and plaid-jacket shtick he has managed to fool rubes into believing
that he is a scientist, but he is nothing of the sort. A person who pretends to
have expertise that he does not in fact possess is a fraud, plain and simple. I
don't expect to convince you. This exchange is both pointless and tiresome, and
it is a waste of my time. Goodbye for good.

My
words:

1.The
results of Googling the word "Biotechnology:"

"Biotechnology
is a technology that is based on biology, and uses living organisms to make
innovative products and techniques that will improve our lives. ... GE is a
process where scientists and researchers deliberately modify the genetic makeup
of an organism."

2.The
results of Googling the word, "Bionanotechnology:"

"Bionanotechnology
is a branch of nanotechnology which uses biological starting materials,
utilizes biological design or fabrication principles or is applied in medicine
or biotechnology."

3.The
results of Googling the word "Biomedical Engineering:"

"Biomedical
engineering (BME) is the application of engineering principles and design
concepts to medicine and biology for healthcare purposes (e.g. diagnostic or
therapeutic)."

These
are various fields which utilize Mechanical engineering skills as part of their
expertise. "Biomedical," refers to:

"Biomedical
sciences are a set of applied sciences applying portions of natural science or
formal science, or both, to develop knowledge, interventions, or technology
that are of use in healthcare or public health."

So,
all the three above scientific field are all included as areas of knowledge
that are utilized by Engineers, and they all overlap with Mechanical
Engineering in fields such as Aerospace Engineering,

Each
field deals with different specific applications of their knowledge, but all of
them drink from a common well of knowledge that depends on the same basic, and
fundamental scientific knowledge.

The
world of science is not in Kansas
anymore, it has numerous and similar applications across a broad spectrum of
similar usage.

My
words-In this final response I made to Mekhlis, I included the criticisms of
Sarah Palin, because she seems pretty typical of all the non-scientist
"experts" who seem to think they know more about global warming than
the actual scientists that study it. However, the information about Nye's
knowledge and career illustrates that engineers apply science when doing their
jobs. Thus, it is absurd for Mekhlis to deny that people like Nye have a great
deal of scientific knowledge that they use and apply in their work. So, if
these facts don't make them scientists, why do they know so much about it, and
apply it so expertly?

Peter
JohnsonMekhlis * a day ago

http://www.factcheck.org/20...

"So
how do Nye and Palin's scientific credentials compare?"

"Palin
has none. She has a bachelor's in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho. She has spent her career in
politics. In addition to serving as governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009, she was
chairperson for the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission between 2003 and
2004 and Republican vice-presidential candidate in the 2008 election, among
other posts.

Nye
has a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Cornell. He also has six honorary
doctorate degrees, including Ph.D. s in science from Goucher College
and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute."

"He
held various positions as an engineer between 1977 to 2009, such as
contributing to the designs of 747 planes for Boeing and the designs of
equipment used to clean up oil spills."

"From
1999 to 2009, Nye worked with a team at the NASA and California Institute of
Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory to design and create the MarsDial, a
sundial and camera calibrator attached to the Mars Exploration Rover."

"Nye
also holds three patents: a redesigned ballet toe shoe, a digital abacus (a
kind of calculator) and an educational lens."

"Nye
has written books on science, including "Undeniable" and
"Unstoppable," which cover evolution and climate change,
respectively. This is all in addition to decades of work in science advocacy
and education, including acting as CEO of The Planetary Society and teaching as
a professor at Cornell.

To
sum up, Nye has a degree and experience working in engineering, which is the
application of science. He has also spent much of his career working with and
for the scientific community. Thus, his credentials make him more of a
scientist than Palin."

"Editor's
Note: SciCheck is made possible by a grant from the Stanton Foundation.

Categories:
SciCheck and The Wire"

My
words-Congratulations! You have graduated towards resorting to ad hominin
insults, when the facts do not support your beliefs.

Yes,
I cut and paste, and from many reputable sources--not just Wikipedia! Have you
somehow transcended the petty human belief that if you want to quote people and
articles that provide verifiable knowledge, then it is appropriate to provide
links that show where that knowledge was taken from?

If
your entire rebutting technique is going to consist of marginalizing my sources
or insulting the facts that I provide, then this conversation really is
pointless. So, go right ahead and drop out of it--be my guest, in fact.

My
words-Lately it seems that many of my best posts end up living in purgatory on
my disqus page. So, I am including this short back and forth between two other
commenters, one being cunudiun, who I thought made excellent points. In The
final post I added my two cents worth mainly because I think I wrote it well.

JinJacunudiun * 3 months ago

Why
don't you admit that your a shill who wants the debate to be over? Do you say
the debate is over? Yes or no?

cunudiunJinJa * 3 months ago

What
debate precisely? Yes to some things. No to others.

JinJacunudiun * 3 months ago

Climate
science, precisely. Is debate over? Simple enough.

cunudiunJinJa * 3 months ago

Ok.
I'll answer that one if you answer mine: Chemistry: is the debate over?

JinJacunudiun * 3 months ago

Never.
Old and new concepts are explored all the time. Your turn.

cunudiunJinJa * 3 months ago

Ok.
Same. Now answer this one. Is water composed of hydrogen and oxygen? Settled or
not?

JinJacunudiun * 3 months ago

Nah.
You still owe us your answer. Then I will reply.

cunudiunJinJa * 3 months ago

I
answered "Same," meaning same answer as yours. Should have made that
clearer. Does that mean nothing in chemistry is settled? Is my point.

JinJacunudiun * 3 months ago

I
was taught that scientists since Aristotle usually agree that nothing in
science is settled, nor should be. Of course my evil corporate funded 10th
grade public school teachers might have been lying about it.

Peter
JohnsonJinJa * 13 days ago

What
you are not seeing are two basic facts---that global warming exists, and that
man is the primary cause of it. Those are facts--that's what the consensus
confirms, those facts are firmly known. But of course there will continue to be
unknowns about many specific questions involving climate science or about any
branch of science, for that matter. That's why cunundiun asked you if it's a fact
that water is composed of both Hydrogen and Oxygen--the answer is yes! That is
completely known and completely verifiable--however that in no way implies that
every single question raised by chemists is always completely known and
completely verifiable. What your science class instructor was probably
saying--was that there will always be specific unknowns in any field of
scientific endeavor--in other words scientists will probably never know all
there is to know about AGW, or about any other branch of science--they are not
claiming to be know it alls! Yet they can continue adding knowledge regarding
many specific scientific phenomena.

Many
basic facts ARE virtually known--as cunudiun points out--that the chemical bond
between hydrogen and oxygen is what produces water, or the fact that human
beings are causing global warming to increase through our manufacture of Co2 as
the result of combining fossil fuels and oxygen when catalyzed by heat. That's
what the fire is, a chemical process whereby fossil fuels are combined with
oxygen, by applying heart (and unfortunately) releasing billions of tons of Co2
as a harmful by-product of rapid oxidation.

Do
I have that right cunudiun? (seriously)--you probably know much more about
chemistry than I do? My last chemistry class was about 47 years ago.

What
always impresses me is not just the total denial of science when their claims
are threatened, but also the fact that, while exuding an air of anger and
snobbery, deniers often resort to the claims that their opponents are insulting
them? This is an easy out which keeps the commenter from actually responding to
the points brought up by his or her opponents. But this ruse is accepted by too
many people who would rather suspect a vast scientific conspiracy than the very
logical conclusion that big oil and big coal companies are using their billons
in profits to protect every last iota of their profits, which might be
threatened if they were forced to reduce Co2 emissions. If more deniers really
knew what is at stake, my hope is that they would quickly change their tune and
take actions to preserve the only environment and the only planet we have.